Why not wait until the election in 2016 to nominate a supreme court justice

[Syriusly]

In the mean time we have a court who isn't able to make a definitive ruling on anything.

========
Wrong again moose breath.

An 8 member court CAN make rulings and they will.

If they have tie vote then the ruling of the lower court that was appealed to them stands.
But if they vote 5-3 they can make NEW rulings and they likely will without Scalia acting as a roadblock.

A tie vote prevents the court from functioning as intended.

How so? If it's that's close then it isn't a matter of law. A good law student can figure out the law. What 4 to 4 means is that there aren't enough liberals on the bench to ram their ideology down our throats.

LOL......I love how Konservative Kooks like you call decisions you disapprove of 'ramming their ideology down your throats'- but are happy to embrace a 5 to 4 decision that overturns State laws you disapprove of.

I'm happy for any adherance to law. The bench isn't where laws are to be written. That's the function of the legislative branch. Reason being the people have a say.

Well we are in agreement- good thing that the Supreme Court doesn't write laws.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Well that is the argument of the GOP.

I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.

Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.

He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.

They ARE doing their job, Dumbass...

They told Obozo NO....
View attachment 68274

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

They told the President 'no'- they didn't offer advice- or consent

That is all right- the Party of Donald Trump hardly cares about the Constitution anymore anyway.

They aren't under any obligation to "consent" to whatever Obungles wants, so they withheld that consent....

Deal with it....

Oh I can 'deal with it'- I just enjoy pointing out that the GOP Senate can't be bothered to do their job under the Constitution.

They did. They advised Obama that he will not get his nominee confirmed. Next liberal lie!

 

[Obiwan]

They

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Well that is the argument of the GOP.

I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.

Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.

He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.

They ARE doing their job, Dumbass...

They told Obozo NO....
View attachment 68274

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,

They told the President 'no'- they didn't offer advice- or consent

That is all right- the Party of Donald Trump hardly cares about the Constitution anymore anyway.

They aren't under any obligation to "consent" to whatever Obungles wants, so they withheld that consent....

Deal with it....

Oh I can 'deal with it'- I just enjoy pointing out that the GOP Senate can't be bothered to do their job under the Constitution.

They ARE doing their job, which is to give (or withhold) consent on the Idiot-in-Chief's nominations....

They are withholding consent....

So go suck on it, loser....

 

[Iceweasel]

Huh? That was confusing.

Don't know why you are confused.


1. Peach says the Senate was going to take up the nomination in November.

2. I post showing McConnell saying no they are not.

3. You respond with something about the White House which has no bearing on #1 and #2.

4. I post to you pointing out that #3 has nothing to do with #1 and #2.



Pretty straight forward.>>>>

Something about the White House? It proved you are an idiot. The WH said they aren't changing the nomination so that exlpains item number 1 and 2.

You aren't very good at this, stick with trying to bully the kids at the playgound.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah right--LOL We have seen the general public go bat shit crazy over Bernie Sanders a communist, and a maniac in Donald Trump. And you want to trust them with picking out a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't think so.

With such sentiments why trust the public with anything at all? Why even have democracy if the people can't handle it properly.

We don't elect Supreme Court Justices- we elect President's every 4 years- and they are President the entire 4 years- not just the first 3 years.

Why won't the GOP listen to the people?

The GOP is advising Obama that his influence ends when he leaves, not when this upcoming Supreme Court justice is ready for a dirt nap.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.

And they elected a Republican majority in the Senate.....
View attachment 68243

And that Republican Majority is choosing to not do its job under the Constitution.

They are refusing to hold hearings for purely political reasons.

Where does it say in the Constitution that hearings must be held?

It doesn't!

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Senate never offered advice- the President of the Senate specifically said that they would not be offering advice.

When did Joe Biden in has capacity as the President of the Senate tell President Obama that the Senate would not be offering advice?


>>>>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Well that is the argument of the GOP.

I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.

Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.

He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.

You forgot to post the part where they aren't doing their job. obama followed their advice? I doubt it.

The Senate never offered advice- the President of the Senate specifically said that they would not be offering advice.

If the Senate doesn't vote on it- the Senate has offered no advice or consent.

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

The President of the Senate is Joe Biden.

When he was a Senator and Reagan was President, he wanted the Democrats to block his nominations for over a year and a half!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.

See "Biden Rule".

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?

 

[Obiwan]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Well that is the argument of the GOP.

I don't see any 6th year Senators offering not to vote for their final year as Senator just to wait to see 'what the people' want.

Meanwhile- the people vote on the President every 4 years- and for a 4 year term- the people have spoken.

The President's job is to nominate a Supreme Court Justice- the Senate's job is to 'advise and consent'- it is the Senate that is refusing to to their job as per the U.S. Constitution.

He shall have Power,..... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..... Judges of the supreme Court,

The President is doing his Constitutionally mandated job- the Senate is refusing to do their job.

You forgot to post the part where they aren't doing their job. obama followed their advice? I doubt it.

The Senate never offered advice- the President of the Senate specifically said that they would not be offering advice.

If the Senate doesn't vote on it- the Senate has offered no advice or consent.

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

The President of the Senate is Joe Biden.

When he was a Senator and Reagan was President, he wanted the Democrats to block his nominations for over a year and a half!

RFLMAO!!!

Spot on!!!
List of the Presidents of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

The People chose the person they wanted to pick the nominee in 2012.

And they picked the people to stop him in 2014, Dumbass....
View attachment 68246

Then the Senate can vote the guy down and face those consequences.

Why should they? You guys are pretending they are duty bound. Quote it up or look foolish.

Did I say that? Let the Republican Senate continue to demonstrate their dysfunction. Better yet.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.

See "Biden Rule".

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

 

[regent]

It would be better to wait until a president has been elected for a second term then we know the people approve.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.

See "Biden Rule".

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

You should really lay off the mind-altering substances while posting. Exactly who did Bush nominate in his last year? Don't bother denying it, but you screwed up!

Neither George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush nominated and had a justice confirmed in the last year they were in office.

I await your apology, but I won't hold my breath!

 

[Timmy]

The real question is why wait ? The sup court is still doing business .

Scalia was put in by Reagan , yet you want the future election to decide his replacement ?

 

[bripat9643]

Why not let the supreme court nominee be democratically elected by the people? We can't do that but because the nominee is selected by the president but because this is an election year the people may get a chance to decide who should be the nominee. Each candidate will pick a nominee and the people will vote for the candidate whose nominee they happen to like. It is an opportunity to democratically choose who is going to be on the supreme court which is something that rarely happens in this country.

Because the constitution says the president is supposed to nominate supreme court justices and the congress is supposed to vote on that nomination. Do you really want to ignore the constitution to potentially have Trump nominate his sister?

Simple solution: amend the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah right--LOL We have seen the general public go bat shit crazy over Bernie Sanders a communist, and a maniac in Donald Trump. And you want to trust them with picking out a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't think so.

How is that any worse than allowing a demagogue president to select them? Just consider the array of intellectual lightweights that Obama put on the court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why the last year of a presidency? What makes that significant? Why not the last 2 years? Or 3? Or the whole 2nd term?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why not wait until after the election? The Dims are confident they will win so what's the problem?

They ain't which is why they are in a hurry to nominate someone before the 2016 election.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Who cares if it's an election year? Thats nothing more than an excuse. If Scalia had died 6 months ago they would have made some other excuse like the campaigns have already started. This is all nonsense and nothing more than Republicans not wanting Obama to have another Supreme Court pick and making lame excuses. McConnell says the American people should have a say. They DO have a say - they elected Obama for 8 years, not 7.

See "Biden Rule".

========
The " Biden Rule " only exists in the minds of demented raging righties.

Biden suggested not confirming anyone BUT THE DEMS DID NOT DO IT -- IN FACT THEY CONFIRMED THE NOMINEE.

Yeah, the THIRD nominee, who turned out to be a flaming liberal on the court! Why did you leave that part out?[/QUOTE

========
Because it's irrelevant.

The argument is whether the Senate should do it's job or not.

The fact was that the so called " Biden Rule " has NEVER EXISTED. It was just a suggestion he made ( perhaps while high ) and the DEMS did not do it.

Raging righties talk as though because he made a suggestion it HAPPENED when in fact they know it did not.

Democrats DID confirm a Supreme Court Justice during Bush's last year in office and Bush nominated him ... the Democrats did not nominate him but they did confirm a Justice. The political flavor of that justice is irrelevant to the argument of whether or not Democrats have confirmed a justice during the last year of a Republicans term and THEY HAVE.

So GFY.

You should really lay off the mind-altering substances while posting. Exactly who did Bush nominate in his last year? Don't bother denying it, but you screwed up!

Neither George H. W. Bush, not George W. Bush nominated and had a justice confirmed in the last year they were in office.

I await your apology, but I won't hold my breath!

========
I won't apologize ... but I will admit I was wrong.

Justice Kennedy was appointed in 1988 the last year of REAGAN'S Presidency.

Sorry bout that, got them mixed up.

But the point is still VALID ... Democrats HAVE confirmed a Justice during the last year of a Republican Presidents term.